Oh, were you not smart enough to extrapolate that I'm talking about religious donations being counted as charity and a whole lot of that money gong to bullshit that had nothing to do with actual charity? Guess I'll have to say it explicitly.

What percent of the donations are to churches then? Or are you just spewing non-scientific nonsense out of your fat ass again?

And what percent of the church's income goes to distributing supplies and providing services to the downtrodden? Or are you just basing your arguments off of pseudo-mathematical bullshit?

You've also COMPLETELY failed to refute the fact that Republicans pay for all of the tax-based services that Democratic plantation slaves take for granted.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Aug 6 2016 10:51am

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1100129/who-gives.pdf

Why would I expect you to be smart enough to just educate yourself? Lol

Giving to church =/= giving to charity.

And every analysis that tries top pretend conservatives are more giving includes giving to your local church to pay for a parsonage, lol

True... charities take much more off the top.

This study normalizes the statistics for income, but its conclusion fails because it doesn't normalize for that fact that Republicans get paid more because they provide more services to the community.

You also assume that Churches provide 0 assistance to the poor. If churches provide any of their income toward services that help the poor, your entire argument is destroyed.



False dichotomy.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Aug 6 2016 10:56am

The Clinton Cartel is a perfect example.

What are you talking about? It isn't a dichotomy. People spend money on things, like a house, their church, their car, etc. They can also donate money to charities. It isn't a dichotomy, it is just people doing different things.

You love to throw out informal fallacies though and I love it



I doubt this. Administration costs at any given charity is really low and it has to be or else 501c3 status would be in jeopardy.

Nonprofit administration costs is usually much lower than any private sector example providing similar services. There is more competition and the profit motive isn't there so value is maximized for the users and not the shareholders in the end.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 6 2016 11:04am

Lol, this is such a terrible post.

Yes, buying private jets for Joel Osteen counts as charity as long as one poor person gets a sandwich

And lol, conservatives make more money because they donate more to charity, holy fucking shit, what an embarrassing non-argument.

This post was edited by AiNedeSpelCzech on Aug 6 2016 11:33am